NY Times: "How to Charge Millions of Electric Cars?"

[timhebb]

Climate change has been happening long before man ruled the earth. We might be able to reverse some of the effect but mostly life needs to adapt or perish.

True, but climate change has never been caused by a living species before, and it doesn't seem wise to ignore that and proceed as if it's just another natural cycle to which we need to adjust. We are creating it this time, and have an opportunity to reverse or at least retard it to some degree by modifying our behavior as a species. Shouldn't we?

 

[Luft]

Climate change has been happening long before man ruled the earth. We might be able to reverse some of the effect but mostly life needs to adapt or perish.

True, but climate change has never been caused by a living species before, and it doesn't seem wise to ignore that and proceed as if it's just another natural cycle to which we need to adjust. We are creating it this time, and have an opportunity to reverse or at least retard it to some degree by modifying our behavior as a species. Shouldn't we?

It is vital that we take very aggressive action to save our planet. According to Arizona State University Professor Peter Byck, it's game over at 350 parts per million of carbon in our atmosphere. We are already over 400 parts per million. which means we have already doomed the Earth.

Our only chance is to take steps to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Just stopping putting more carbon into the atmosphere will not stop the collapse.

The steps we need to take will require cooperation by businesses and probably government. Of course THAT means we're all dead. We just don't know it yet.

 

[ERG4ALL]

This is all the more reason to have a "smart grid". That is the utility can communicate with the car. With the current LEAF (i.e. 6.6 kWh charger) the car can be charged from 0 to 80% in less than 3 hours. Thus, some cars could start charging at 7:00PM and others could start charging at 3:00AM. Problem solved and utilities happy that they can have a more constant demand.

 

[Zythryn]

Luft, that type of talk is what looses people.
The planet will be just fine.
Our society is what is at risk.
Many individuals will suffer. Starvation will occur more often and there will be migrations of humans on a scale we have never seen.
Add to that the many species that will go extinct as a result of our experiment and things do look dire indeed.
But the planet will be just fine.

 

[Luft]

Luft, that type of talk is what looses people.
The planet will be just fine.
Our society is what is at risk.
Many individuals will suffer. Starvation will occur more often and there will be migrations of humans on a scale we have never seen.
Add to that the many species that will go extinct as a result of our experiment and things do look dire indeed.
But the planet will be just fine.

If by "the planet will be fine" you mean that it will support cockroaches and single cell animals and maybe more complex lifeforms millions of year later then yeah, you could be right. If you think that two hundred years from now there will still be human life on Earth then not so much.

 

[Zythryn]

Luft, that type of talk is what looses people.
The planet will be just fine.
Our society is what is at risk.
Many individuals will suffer. Starvation will occur more often and there will be migrations of humans on a scale we have never seen.
Add to that the many species that will go extinct as a result of our experiment and things do look dire indeed.
But the planet will be just fine.

If by "the planet will be fine" you mean that it will support cockroaches and single cell animals and maybe more complex lifeforms millions of year later then yeah, you could be right. If you think that two hundred years from now there will still be human life on earth then not so much.

I do. As a matter of fact I don't believe GW could possibly make us extinct.
I certainly believe it could bring the population down to 1 Billion.
Again, the planet will be fine. Don't exaggerate, it makes your argument look weak and people will be less likely to be swayed by anything you say.
The facts are bad enough, no need for ridiculous statements of doom.

 

[Luft]

Luft, that type of talk is what looses people.
The planet will be just fine.
Our society is what is at risk.
Many individuals will suffer. Starvation will occur more often and there will be migrations of humans on a scale we have never seen.
Add to that the many species that will go extinct as a result of our experiment and things do look dire indeed.
But the planet will be just fine.

If by "the planet will be fine" you mean that it will support cockroaches and single cell animals and maybe more complex lifeforms millions of year later then yeah, you could be right. If you think that two hundred years from now there will still be human life on earth then not so much.

I do. As a matter of fact I don't believe GW could possibly make us extinct.
I certainly believe it could bring the population down to 1 Billion.
Again, the planet will be fine. Don't exaggerate, it makes your argument look weak and people will be less likely to be swayed by anything you say.
The facts are bad enough, no need for ridiculous statements of doom.

Ah yes. The inevitable denial that mankind can do anything that will actually completely destroy the planet. I'm afraid that the problem is far worse than you believe and unless we take action to reverse the situation soon it will simply be too late.

I believe that the human race is doomed to extinction because we are a very intelligent and selfish race. By the time enough people realize that our actions carry the most dire consequences it will be over. Quite simply we are too intelligent while at the same time not being wise enough to survive as a species. I would be glad to be proven wrong about this BTW.

But alas people will always deny there own mortality. They would rather believe that a god or science will somehow swoop in and save them. Ironic being that those two things are the cause of the situation. Science gave us the ability to poison our world and Religion motivates people to wait to be delivered by a supreme being instead of doing what it would actually take to save their world.

 

[Nubo]

Luft, that type of talk is what looses people.
The planet will be just fine.
Our society is what is at risk.
Many individuals will suffer. Starvation will occur more often and there will be migrations of humans on a scale we have never seen.
Add to that the many species that will go extinct as a result of our experiment and things do look dire indeed.
But the planet will be just fine.

If by "the planet will be fine" you mean that it will support cockroaches and single cell animals and maybe more complex lifeforms millions of year later then yeah, you could be right. If you think that two hundred years from now there will still be human life on earth then not so much.

I do. As a matter of fact I don't believe GW could possibly make us extinct.
I certainly believe it could bring the population down to 1 Billion.
Again, the planet will be fine. Don't exaggerate, it makes your argument look weak and people will be less likely to be swayed by anything you say.
The facts are bad enough, no need for ridiculous statements of doom.

I'm not worried about "the planet". I'm worried about people! You seem rather unfazed by the misery involved in literally decimating the human population. Even the Black Death didn't manage to do that in Europe.

But "the planet will be fine"? Oh, good. :?

 

[apvbguy]

 

[Zythryn]

I'm not worried about "the planet". I'm worried about people! You seem rather unfazed by the misery involved in literally decimating the human population. Even the Black Death didn't manage to do that in Europe.

But "the planet will be fine"? Oh, good. :?

Excellent, I am far more concerned about the people too!
Oh please don't get me wrong. I am a stronger proponent for trying to do something about it than most.
What I hate, second only to denialists arguments, are doomer arguments that use hyperbole that do more harm to their own cause than good.

The disasters we are already seeing are horrific. Loss of arctic ice is in a death spiral which looks to not be reversible. Heck, we may see an ice free arctic minimum in just a few years.

The reason I say the planet will be fine is to try to get people to stop using that silly phrase.
Instead use:
The ecosphere is falling apart.
The earth will only be able to support 2 Billion humans.
Weather disasters will cost us an extra trillion dollars each decade.

Any of the above will have, in my opinion, more impact because they are accurate. Saying 'we will destroy the earth' is just silly and only serves to either cause you to loose credibility or destroy your entire argument (even valid parts) when the listener finds out what a stupid statement that is.

 

[Zythryn]

Ah yes. The inevitable denial that mankind can do anything that will actually completely destroy the planet. I'm afraid that the problem is far worse than you believe and unless we take action to reverse the situation soon it will simply be too late.
...

There are lots of ways we can eradicate most life on earth. However, I prefer accurate statements in important discussions.
We are incapable, as a species, to literally destroy the planet.
We are full capable of wiping out 90% of life on earth, and if we don't do something more very soon, I suspect we will. And yes, it will take the ecosphere 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands, or even a million years to fully recover.

Our civilization is what is at stake.
Our ability to feed our population.
Our relative ease of life which gives many of us time to research, invent and innovate.
We have built up a huge civilization in a relatively stable and warm climate. And we are pushing it well beyond its limits. And once it adjusts to the huge amount of co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere, it will not be nearly as hospitable.
Starvation of many? Likely.
Increased weather disasters? Alreay here.
Dark ages? Certainly possible.
Destroy the earth? Hyperbole

 

[cgaydos]

That NY Times article should have had a label at the top: "Advertisement: Paid for by the Carbon Polluters of America".

 

[Luft]

Ah yes. The inevitable denial that mankind can do anything that will actually completely destroy the planet. I'm afraid that the problem is far worse than you believe and unless we take action to reverse the situation soon it will simply be too late.
...

There are lots of ways we can eradicate most life on earth. However, I prefer accurate statements in important discussions.
We are incapable, as a species, to literally destroy the planet.
We are full capable of wiping out 90% of life on earth, and if we don't do something more very soon, I suspect we will. And yes, it will take the ecosphere 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands, or even a million years to fully recover.

Our civilization is what is at stake.
Our ability to feed our population.
Our relative ease of life which gives many of us time to research, invent and innovate.
We have built up a huge civilization in a relatively stable and warm climate. And we are pushing it well beyond its limits. And once it adjusts to the huge amount of co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere, it will not be nearly as hospitable.
Starvation of many? Likely.
Increased weather disasters? Alreay here.
Dark ages? Certainly possible.
Destroy the earth? Hyperbole

You are correct. The planet will still be here. It may look more like Mars then Earth and support no life save single cell variety but yes, the planet will still be orbiting the sun.

 

[Smidge204]

People have rightly accused me of being a bit of a pedant over the years, but this kind of discussion is seriously bullsh*t. If the ecosystem and climate are altered such that life as we're familiar with - especially humans - can no longer survive, then the Earth has been destroyed.

It only comes across as hyperbole if you can't use a dictionary. Can we move on to a more productive conversation now?
=Smidge=

 

[kentuckyleaf]

Climate change has been happening long before man ruled the earth. We might be able to reverse some of the effect but mostly life needs to adapt or perish.

True, but climate change has never been caused by a living species before, and it doesn't seem wise to ignore that and proceed as if it's just another natural cycle to which we need to adjust. We are creating it this time, and have an opportunity to reverse or at least retard it to some degree by modifying our behavior as a species. Shouldn't we?

Trees caused climate change. The only difference is that trees are unable to understand what they are doing, we are able. Anyway, to get back on topic, It should be simple to charge all of these cars if we add in more rooftop solar, which cools the transformers during the heat of the day by reducing loads when the AC is running. More sun, more A/C and more PV electric. The transformers get hot during the heat of the day when the sun is shining and the A/C is running. Since we have time of use metering, we precool the house from 6am until 11am (all off peak in the summer) and slowly let the house warm up during peak. TOU metering will solve many problems all by itself.

 

[edatoakrun]

="kentuckyleaf"

... trees are unable to understand what they are doing, we are able...

Not sure if I agree with you there.

Trees have been around for a long time, and have never brought about climate change that led to their extinction.

We have been around for only a moment (comparatively) and we seem to be unable to understand that we may be doing just that.

="kentuckyleaf"

...Anyway, to get back on topic, It should be simple to charge all of these cars if we add in more rooftop solar...

I'm not much of a fan of rooftop solar on detached homes, since for most homes in the USA the most cost-effective way to reduce cooling load, and your home's peak grid demand, is to shade your home (and roof) using trees.

Of course, this is generally incompatible with "rooftop" PV.

="kentuckyleaf"

...TOU metering will solve many problems all by itself.

I agree with you there.

My PG&E E9A monthly bill, for both my passive solar/thermal mass home (tree-shaded-in-Summer) and for charging LEAF. runs between $30 and $45 a month, year round.

 

[Sublime]

turns out, the article does not see any problem in managing this; rather it sees opportunity.

The fact that the power company could have a massive distributed battery bank at their disposal during peak usage seems like an opportunity to me. They just need to work out a model where they pay the EV owner in free charge for the use of the pack while it's connected.

 

[WetEV]

Climate change has been happening long before man ruled the earth. We might be able to reverse some of the effect but mostly life needs to adapt or perish.

Yea.

There have been climate changes similar to the one humans are currently in the middle of causing. Exactly one of similar size since life moved on land.

The PT.

Also known as the Great Dying.

 

[kentuckyleaf]

I'm not much of a fan of rooftop solar on detached homes, since for most homes in the USA the most cost-effective way to reduce cooling load, and your home's peak grid demand, is to shade your home (and roof) using trees.

Rooftop solar is typically offset from the roof, and it does provide shade. We can always say that air conditioning shouldn't have been invented, or it should have been outlawed, but it is here to stay, so now what? Wouldn't we be better off if everyone in the south used rooftop PV as opposed to the alternative, which is to do nothing?

 

[smkettner]

By the time solar shades your entire roof you will have plenty of the sun's energy to run the air conditioner.
Trees next to the home could be a fire hazard in many areas.